What Does a Yearly Expansion Cycle Mean for Everquest?
by Loral on May 05, 2007
On 30 April 2007, Everquest's current producer, Clint Worley, announced that SOE would begin a yearly development cycle for Everquest expansions beginning this November and taking place every November thereafter. Today we discuss the possible impact of this large strategic change in Everquest's development.
During the original Everquest Community Summit SOE stated that predictable population drops occurred between expansions. The population would also predictably rise every time a new expansion was released. SOE argued that six-month development cycles helped keep the population more steady than the peaks and valleys seen in yearly expansions. Now SOE moves back to the yearly expansions, a release cycle we haven't seen since the release of Planes of Power.
This recent change brings up many more questions than answers. For example, what will this do to the development team itself? Will SOE reduce the amount of money spent over the year? Will the same number of developers remain on the staff throughout the year-long development cycle? How does this affect the developer's salaries? If it lowers the amount of money they earn, will they be more likely to find other projects?
What will this do to the product itself? Will the cost increase? Some players speculate that the cost will likely go up to $40 per expansion. A yearly release of the entire Everquest collection including all previous expansions and one new expansion could be another strategy. With the strength of competing MMO expansions such as Blizzard's Burning Crusade expansion for World of Warcraft, SOE may have a hard time selling an Everquest expansion for the same cost.
What will happen to the in-game population over the year? Will the lands of Norrath become barren during the summer months? Video and computer game releases often relax during the summer months, hoping to focus attention closer to the holidays. The number of people playing Zelda: Twilight Princess during the summer matters very little to the overall health of any single player's experiences, but a reduced population in an MMO affects each player who wishes to play - especially in a game with a very clear focus on group and raid encounters.
What caused SOE to make this radical change? The quality of expansions released in the spring has always lagged behind the quality of expansions released in the fall. What happened recently to make them decide that a yearly release was a better idea? Was it the clear lack of quality in spring releases or some other decision based on player metrics and business trends?
What will SOE do with those extra months? Will we see larger expansions like Omens of War, The Serpent's Spine, or even Planes of Power? Will SOE return to a multi-tiered model where even high-end raiders need to progress through multiple sets of end-zones in order to complete all of the raids in a single expansion? Will SOE use the time to debug, tune, balance, and polish the release? We can certainly hope.
Why would SOE tell us this now? Perhaps they tell us to help quiet the voices that complain about the current twice-yearly release cycle or perhaps they are setting us up for future changes yet unheard.
It will be nearly nineteen months before we see the true result of this change. The November release this year gives SOE two more months to improve this fall's expansion but we won't see the full result of a yearly development cycle until fall 2008. That's a long way off and a lot can happen. With the recent release of Lord of the Rings Online and the upcoming Age of Conan, the competition for massive multiplayer online role playing games gets thick. Blizzard will no doubt release another expansion for World of Warcraft in that time. Rumors speak to a new Blizzard MMO release as well, possibly announced in May. This is also the first full year with consoles being able to fully support massive online games without any hardware modifications or additions. What will the population in Everquest be like when the MMO universe has many alternate worlds to explore and half a year before Norrath sees changes to its landscape?
The console market is ready for a good powerful console-based massive online game. All of these things may drastically change the landscape between now and the first full-year expansion release for Everquest since Planes of Power.
We will end this discussion with a few predictions and a few things to monitor over the next year.
First, I predict the next expansion will be a large one with a level increase, possibly even to 85, and multiple tiers of single-group and raid progression. The expansion will have to include a large amount of progressive encounters and rewards to keep people playing throughout most of 2008. It may also include a large amount of solo content, and may need to if the populations do begin to lower over the summer of 2008. I hope we begin seeing more regular releases of new player models. SOE cannot include new models in an expansion if they plan to change them for everyone, but it is clearly the most outdated feature of Everquest right now. Overall, I expect this year's expansion to be a big one, on the order of Omens of War, The Serpent's Spine, and maybe even Planes of Power.
Over the next year we should continue to watch the population of Everquest. I expect we may see a server merger in the spring of 2008 to off-set the reduced amounts of players over the summer. We should also keep an eye on the development staff itself. If we start to see some of the bigger names moving on to newer projects, that could bode poorly for the game overall. Eventually Everquest will make that transition from a fully developed and marketed product to one of maintenance and upkeep. This next year may be the time we see this switch.
At this time we have far more questions than answers. We can keep our fingers on the silk strands of our web, feeling for the vibrations that will tell us more of what may come to pass, but for now, the web remains still.
Loral Ciriclight
5 May 2007
loral@loralciriclight.com
Comment Posted by: Aarkan on May 6, 2007 01:16 AM
I agree, Spider-man 3 was awesome.
Comment Posted by: Skuz on May 6, 2007 03:40 AM
I think you sum-up quite well the concerns of many regarding this change.
I think your prediction of a level raise may be right, although previously level raises were each 2 years, SoE may see level raises yearly as an important part of their new strategy.
I think we'll likely see a raise to 80, 85 is possible but I think it's unlikely, but I think both will be a bit harder to attain than in prior expansions.
I also think there will be a need for a large AA pool the next expansion, AA are seen as a major "something to do to stop me getting bored", & I also think we muight see more expendables.
We might see a further tier of cultural armor introduced, though the ac on the type 12 AAAA created augments will not advance past the current last blood as they were too high ac.
As for dev staff, I sincerely hope the change does not mean a downsizing, as I think it will be impossible to meet the goals & aspirations the devs currently have with less people.
Comment Posted by: Aarkan on May 6, 2007 04:31 AM
** Removed Spiderman 3 spoilers, Stick to the topic - Loral **
Comment Posted by: Zolina on May 6, 2007 06:42 PM
Probably a good move in the long run because the expansions will be more polished when they come out, but being stuck with TBS as the top expansion until November makes me queasy. The expansion has very little reward for Anguish-Demiplane guilds like ours: the orux weapons and armor aren't upgrades and we can't survive Solteris, so all we can get are spells and the skeletal hand augment.
I think they should put an orux augment vendor into Katta who sells upgraded DoN style augments. Level 75 focus effects, Life Sap III, maybe some very expensive ones that have combined effects. If orux won't work because there's too much of it floating around, create a fifth currency.
Comment Posted by: nctrader on May 6, 2007 10:52 PM
I think its all just a guise from SOE in order to hide their real plan which is to take over Vangard: Saga of Heroes since it would be cheaper for them to take over another game that is similar to EQ and make it thier own instead of rebuilding a whole new game from scracth or trying to rebuild EQ.
My assumptions comes from Brad McQuad's recent post that was originally on VNboards and has been copied to the Silkyvenoms board of SOH. McQuad pretty much says that Vangard is working on a deal (plan to sell most of its game right) with SOE in exchange for a financial bail out.
You can read the McQuad comments here:
*************************************************
SOE is in discussions with Sigil regarding the future of Vanguard and Sigil Games in Carlsbad. Talks are going well and first and foremost, our primary concern right now is what's best for Vanguard and its community. We want to ensure that this game and its community have a healthy future. The specifics that we work out over the coming days will all be with that single goal in mind.
What does that mean? It means that right now Vanguard is doing decently but not as well as we hoped. If you havent read my last long post that outlined some of the things that went wrong during development, etc., please do. So the bottom line is that SOE is going to be getting more involved with Sigil and Vanguard our relationship is going to become even tighter much tighter. At this point I cant say much more than that.
Does this mean an acquisition? I cant say at this point.
Does this mean more or less people at Sigil? I cant say at this point.
Does this mean management changes at Sigil? I cant say at this point.
I *can* say that regardless of the turn out, SOE knows that Sigil has the experience and vision necessary to run Vanguard and therefore a major change in that area is extremely unlikely and would be foolish on their part.
What it does mean at this point is that both companies agree that we need more of SOEs involvement if Vanguard is going to continue to get the support it needs to both continue to be worked on and improved and debugged and optimized. When people start getting burned out of the Warcraft expansion (pardon the pun), we need to make sure that the game is more polished and will play on lower end machines. As people continue to level up, it means that we need additional higher level content, including raid content. If we are going to change our marketing message effectively to target those who played a lot of EverQuest but who have grown up such that they have jobs, families, etc. that they cannot and will not play another EverQuest even though they enjoyed they game years ago. Weve done studies and its not atypical of an old EQ player, when they hear about Vanguard, to assume that because many of the people involved in Vanguards development worked on EQ as well, that Vanguard must simply be an EQ 3. From that point they dont even give Vanguard another look. They dont do any more research on the game. They dont go to the official sites. They dont go to the affiliate sites. Instead they think to themselves, ah well, were I younger and had my life not changed, Id give it a shot, but I just dont have the time for another EQ with better graphics right now.
And thats it they dont give Vanguard another thought EQ peaked in late 2001 at almost 500k subscribers. In its lifetime its sold over 2 million units. Putting EQ in a vacuum and thats a lot of people who played and who arent playing anymore. And the total number of subscribers didnt start going down until sometime 2002. Im also pretty sure up until its peak that the average lifespan of a player was nearing 9-23 months. And as I mentioned in my last lengthy post, this group of people who played but dont anymore could arguably be put into two sub-groups those who look back fondly at those months and even years and those who dont. I have read posts and received emails from people who claim to have played to max level and then quit very angry the I just played your game for 2 years and now I hate you emails. But realistically how big is that group? Even if it was half (boggle) the other group is still pretty big. So ignoring all of the people who have quit or who are growing bored of their current MMOG (WoW, FFXI, DAoC, etc) that need to be reached (and in a very different way, especially the WoW player), both a word of mouth and a formal marketing campaign targeting these people clearly needs to launched. These people need to know that Vanguard does have the EQ feel in many ways but that it is much more soloable than EQ was, especially the early EQ days. They need to know that you can play for short periods of time and advance. They need to know that the end game is not all about raiding into the wee hours of the night. Some subset of these people will still feel burnt out of MMOGs period, but I think theres a lot of people who havent been reached and our and others research supports that. False assumptions are being made by a lot of people. The reality is that Vanguard *is* the game most of these people are looking for it has the good they remember, but has eliminated a lot of the tedium and necessary long hours that dont fit into their lifestyle anymore.
Then there are the people who are growing weary of their current MMOG. Given how much larger the MMOG gamespace has grown since EQs zenith in 2001 (arguably 7 times as large worldwide, and at least 2-3 time as large in North America alone), we have to take advantage of this. At some point these people are going to want to start a new MMOG (especially after the WoW expansion newness has worn out, which for most of the non-hard-core would be when you really have to start raiding in the expansion). LoTR Online is an x-factor reviews from beta testers seem to indicate that the game is more casual like WoW, a small game, and that it looks really good but can run on a lower end system much better than Vanguard (just as WoW can). So at least for a time the more casual bored WoW player may migrate to LoTR Online. How sticky (e.g. how long that game will hold onto players) is unknown, but I think its safe to say that a significant percentage of the more casual bored WoW player will head to LoTR at least first, given the franchise around it. Conservatively this leaves the more hard core WoW player (which in Vanguard or EQ terms would be considered either a hard core or, more likely, a core gamer). That number, even just taking the North American and European gamer is still potentially a large one and needs to be targeted (given Vanguards high system specs, the time it will take to localize, and Blizzards name recognition and pre-existing proven marketing ability in Asia, I wouldnt count that group, although a very significant one, until 2008 or so. Targeting that group is for a future discussion).
Lastly, theres the very real issue of Vanguards system specs, even for the core and hard core gamer in North America and Europe. For a variety of reasons and mistakes on our part that I wont get into right now, Vanguard was released with system spec requirements that were too high for January 2007. Continued optimization will help to a degree, but the games big hope here is simply Moores Law and that by the second half of 2007, and certainly by the end of the year, the system spec issue will have been greatly diminished. The big problem that remains is that you still pretty much need a new system as opposed to, say, simply a new graphics card. But eventually, gamers do replace their systems. Given what Vista (especially the Ultimate edition) takes to really run, combined with other games that come out by the end of the year that really push technology, many people will be compelled to buy new systems. Unlike EQ, which was one of the first hardware only games, Vanguard needs not only a fast graphics card, but also a system with pci-express, fast memory, a fast FSB, etc. With EQ, you just needed to buy a Voodoo 1 or Voodoo 2 the rest of your system is fine. With Vanguard, however, just plugging the fastest AGP card into your 2-3 year old system doesnt cut it. In fact, Vanguard runs pretty well on a 2 GB system with a decent pci-express video card and fast memory in a 2.6 GHz Pentium; conversely, run the game on an older AGP system, the fastest AGP card you can buy, and a 3.2 GHz CPU and youll have framerate issues. The game is simply not CPU bound, nor just graphics card bound, but rather mostly bound by the data that it needs to constantly move from the CPU to main memory to the graphics card, and then all the way back again. Its all about the various bus speeds and caches moving data around efficiently is arguably more important than processing that data on the CPU or GPU. The only fix here, again, is time. Vista (especially the Ultimate edition, which is whats being pushed to gamers) wants fast components. Direct X 10 hardware and software will help a lot, especially when there is a DX10 version of Vanguard. A native 64bit client of Vanguard will eventually help a lot too. Bottom line: by the end of 2007, a lot more people should have upgraded, especially if Microsoft succeeds with Vista and native DX 10 games. And if they really push Gaming for Windows like they did, say, the Xbox 360, the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008 should be a very different landscape for PC games in general and Vanguard specifically. Was the Vanguard tech ahead of its time? Yes, and there has been a price to pay for that short term. But MMOGs ideally never end and if youve architected your engine to both push the limits of existing and near future technology as well as easily employ future technologies, then you have a game that doesnt look dated one, two, even three plus years down the road. And thats what we did with Vanguard so we feel some pain now, but if we can keep the momentum going, this decision pays off in the long run (big time).
In summary, there are arguably a lot of people who by mid to end of this year in the MMOG gamespace for whom Vanguard could potentially be very attractive. What the game needs is a re-launch of sorts, including targeted marketing campaigns, an all-around successful move by gamers to the next generation of hardware, continued good word of mouth viral marketing by those who are already playing, enjoying, and re-subscribing. And all of this could and should ramp up by the end of the year, all the while the Vanguard team is putting in more content, the live team filling out high level content as well as adding to areas of the games vast seamless world which are a bit empty. Then a re-launch towards the end of the year that includes the first expansion, one that would add RTS style city building, ship to ship combat, jousting, and a second half of the Kojanese Archipelago that makes ship travel meaningful and by meaningful I mean not tedious, rewarding exploration, with lots of new areas (both in the existing world and in the extension of the archipelago). And Im talking about some re-use of existing art, combined with new art that fits into the existing continents, and then finally some all out new stuff different styles of terrain (islands) and ocean to look at while making your journey to found a new player city while constantly being attacked by exotic sea creatures, leviathans, and other traditional members of fantasy and crypto-zoology. Not to mention pirates with canons, or other players and their ships on the PvP servers. And who knows, could be first expansion or second, but eventually you need to pull from Mesoamerican mythology, encounter empires based on Greco-roman architecture... it goes on and on, its all planned out, and Vanguard can do all of it given sufficient time. The tools have matured, both in terms of art and design, and the art process orders of magnitude more efficient because of years of Maya scripting, an in-house terrain generator that creates what you want as opposed to spitting out algorithmically generated hills and valleys, and an art team that has this process down pat for example, they were able to re-create Tursh and Leth Nurae in a fraction of time it took them to create the original, smaller, and much less interesting versions.
SOE is in discussions with Sigil regarding the future of Vanguard and Sigil Games in Carlsbad. Talks are going well and first and foremost, our primary concern right now is what's best for Vanguard and its community. We want to ensure that this game and its community have a healthy future. The specifics that we work out over the coming days will all be with that single goal in mind.
So what does that mean again? Again, I apologize for not being able to go into details and its the details that need to be worked out. But I think its safe to say that both Sigil and SOE see the potential of a mind blowing game by the end of the year. Whats needed, bottom line, is some time, and how to get that time is whats being worked out. And so I still see a 500k+ game, I was just off by a year for a variety of reasons, some under my control, many not. And I think SOE sees this as well. To pull it off however, requires a funded and supported Sigil and a well marketed Vanguard with these different target audiences identified and solid plan on how to reach them all, and then a solid execution of said plan, hitting them hard, pushing these WoW everywhere point of purchase materials from the front to the very back.. In the meantime, the Vanguard that was launched in early 2007 continues to move forward, with much of what Ive talked about patched in over time, and the rest in the first expansion (or re-launch, or whatever we all agree upon in terms of product and service placement). Bottom line, Vanguard continues to march forward, a solid and fun game today, and an even better one tomorrow. More state of the game posts by me, a regularly updated In the Works . And whatever kind of increased partnership between Sigil and SOE is necessary to make this vision a reality. And again, as for what that means exactly, more on that later .
**************************************************
Here's the link:
http://www.silkyvenom.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20077
This is where I believe all the SOE resources are going to right now....to bail out Vangard. SOE is not taking more time on this next expansion to fix some old bugs, provide us with better content, or a cleaner game. This is just what they want us to believe.
IMO, the bottome line is that SOE is looking at taking control or Vanguard and can't resource EQ1, EQ2, SWG or any of there other games in the short term if they do. Vanguard is going down fast, really fast so they are selling themselves to the DEVIL (SOE) and SOE to keep the game a float and hopefully their careers.
Again, IMO, SOE see's this as its best way and the quickest way to get back at WOW and is all over this deal but SOE will have to pull and reallocate resources to make it work. The turnaround time for Vangaurd is short lived so SOE/Sigil need to hurry.
I not normally a conspiracy theorist but this is just too coincidental. I don't trust SOE and never will play another of their games hosted or developed. I'd rather go without than get back into another SOE system.
Peace out!
Comment Posted by: Aarkan on May 7, 2007 12:45 AM
Comment Posted by: Aarkan on May 6, 2007 04:31 AM
** Removed Spiderman 3 spoilers, Stick to the topic - Loral **
This post was NOT made by the real Aarkan, Loral. I don't know what it said but I am the #1 guy to not spoil stuff especially not the movie of the year.
On topic, I'm really hoping they can add ways for new or returning players to catch up reasonably to the people with very high gear and hundreds of AA's. I've tried getting back into EQ many times though I always give up when I notice there is absolutely nobody in my level range that wants to group or do anything fun and that it will take me unreasonable amounts of time to catch up to everyone even a little bit.
Comment Posted by: Sunshadow on May 7, 2007 02:34 AM
For a game in EQ lifecycle they absolutely need to make it easy to get into the game and easy to get to a reasonable level.
Firstly they need to release all future expansions so that they include the full game up to that point. Similar to the annerversary edition. That fact it included TBS was fantastic.
Secondly the road to at least lvl 60 has to be made faster. This can be achieved by uping the ZEMs on lower lvl zones. They also need to be able to purchase/unlock blocks of lower AA's as with over 1000 they are more daunting then levels at this stage.
Comment Posted by: blahs on May 7, 2007 04:14 AM
"I don't trust SOE and never will play another of their games hosted or developed. I'd rather go without than get back into another SOE system."
/nod
Vanguard is done, stick a fork in it.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 7, 2007 12:30 PM
Sadly, I think the most likely reason for the change is that SOE has lost money--or at least not gotten the return on investment they wanted--on the last couple expansions. Otherwise they'd keep doing what they have been doing. And if that's the case, then making one expansion a year that's
twice as big (and thus twice as expensive to develop) and charging twice as much for it doesn't change much. SOE needs to change the ratio of revenue to costs.
One change is that players may be less likely to skip the only expansion of the year. That would help the revenue side. I've seen some anecdotal evidence that more people aren't buying all the expansions--does that match others' experience?
But it's more likely that SOE is looking to cut costs. I suspect they plan to reduce the total amount of EQ content they produce per year, and recognized that splitting what they do produce into two expansions would make them even easier to skip--especially since they can't lower the price proportionally (or they'd just keep losing money).
I don't say this to criticize SOE. They're in the business to make money, and the harsh reality is that fewer subscribers means a smaller market for expansions means less money coming in means less money for producing content.
This also changes the purpose of expansions. In the past they've been a major profit source. Now I suspect the focus switches from selling expansions to maintaining player interest so they keep subscribing. It's a subtle change, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out. SOE may even be willing to lose some money on expansions to keep people playing. That could be a good thing for players.
SOE also has to make a strategic decision: with reduced resources it's going to be much harder to keep ahead of the hard-core raiders who already burn through content at a frightening pace. On the other hand, they're EQ's most loyal customers and that part of the game is EQ's biggest strength. Thus I wouldn't be too surprised if we see an even greater focus on high end raids. I don't think it's too unreasonable to assume that other players probably haven't done a lot of the existing content. More AAs are definitely a good idea for them, and a level cap increase may help them be able to do more content--though that also trivializes some of the content they're supposed to do. Itemization revamps to make older zones more attractive might be a cheap way to keep people interested in playing them rather than clamoring for new zones--maybe that's something they could do in between expansions.
Everyone should also expect to spend more time in any given content, as SOE has to make it last a year. Lower drop rates, longer grinds, etc.
Now this does coincide with with Brad McQuaid apparently wanting to see more resources for Vanguard, but they're really separate issues. If keeping the EQ dev staff the same size made economic sense and if increasing the size of the Vanguard dev staff also made economic sense, then SOE could easily do both (either directly by acquiring Sigil or by sending them more money). I'm not sure either is the case.
Vanguard was developed and marketed as the "hardcore" MMORPG, with long travel times, annoying corpse runs, etc. The target audience was always different than WoW's. Never having played it I couldn't say why that hasn't worked out. Perhaps the number of people who put up with that when EQ was the only thing going turned out to be a poor predictor of how many people wanted it given a choice. Perhaps WoW's high-end raid game has turned out to be more satisfying for hardcore players than expected. Or perhaps Vanguard simply failed to execute? I don't know. I have to admit I was amused by the bit on travel though. In development they always said travel would be time-consuming, but that it would also be "meaningful" and fun. Apparently they got the time-consuming part, but the meaningful and fun part will be in the next expansion...
I'm dubious about Vanguard suddenly changing its focus to attract more players. But if they decide to do it, I'd say new blood is needed. The name Brad McQuaid has too many negative associations. Besides, we know what his preferences are in an MMORPG. He may be willing to change Vanguard to make it commercially viable, but who wants to play a game whose devs don't like it?
Comment Posted by: Nolrog on May 7, 2007 01:39 PM
>> then making one expansion a year that's twice as big (and thus twice as expensive to develop)
I don't think an expansion that's twice as big is twice as expensive to develop. Costs are not linear like that. The cost of box art, printing CDs and whatever marketing they do (just to name a few) wouldn't change.
Other costs, in terms of lore and zone art(for example) would be more, but not twice as much. Maybe 30-50% more. Plus, they could do certain things to improve efficiency. Such as taking an existing zone and make 5 different instanced missions in it, which would be no more art work though a bit more developemnt time. They don't need to make twice the number of character models. Maybe a couple extra, but not double.
So while I agree it will cost more, it certainly wouldn't double.
As for the Vanguard stuff, very strong rumors have been around for a couple weeks. With the population closer to the Matrix than EQ and EQ2 combined, it's the only hope for that game to survive.
Comment Posted by: Keisa on May 7, 2007 02:05 PM
I recently started playing Vanguard a fair bit. Here are my viewpoints:
Vanguard's biggest problem, without a doubt, is that it requires a high end system to play. If you have a 2-3 year old computer like I do, then it is a mediocre experience. I even have a very nice video card, and when I go to one of the major cities my computer chokes. I can barely take a step every 2-3 seconds, and turning to go through a door while moving is a catastrophy waiting to happen. Vanguard's response to this issue is that people will have to have better computers to run Vista, so by the end of the year most people will be able to run VG fine, what we call in the industry Overcome By Events (OBE). Really, now.
Vanguard is supposed to be like the original EQ1, but when I play it, I feel more like I'm playing WOW. Everyone can solo well past where I am in the game. It might take a hell of a lot longer than WOW, but there are an overabundance of quests that take anywhere from 15 minutes to 2 hours to do that can be solo'd. The only way that I see that it is like EQ1 is that there are more timesinks in this game than any game I have ever played. Everything is measured to take a certain amount of time to do, and everything takes lots of time. It is divided into smaller, more digestible bites, but the game itself is one long grind, be you adventuring, tradeskilling, harvesting, or doing diplomacy. If you like grinding, then this is the game for you.
I have done tradeskills in almost every MMO I have ever played, and VG tradeskills has to be the most tedious, boring system ever. The system is somewhat similar to EQ2, except where EQ2 is dynamic and interactive, VG's is menu driven. When I say menu driven, I mean that you perform an action, get results, then choose another action. This is the first game I've played where I just flat out decided I won't do tradeskills because it was not enjoyable.
Diplomacy introduced a new and interesting way to play the game. Basically, you play a card game where your cards determine your skills at diplomacy. Using your cards (diplomatic skills), you sweet talk, cajole, or threaten your opponent into coming around to your point of view. My one complaint is that since the decks are static for all the NPCs and randomness has little to no affect on the game, and you have to win a gagillion games to build skill and win quests. This means playing the same game over and over with little to no variation. I think it is a good start, but all NPCs should randomly choose cards so that games are interesting instead of being highly repetative. If I have to beat the same three NPCs 100 times to go on to the next set of NPCs, then those NPCs should not always play the exact same way. I really like diplomacy, but don't know if I'm going to be able to stand the grinding aspect.
So, that's my view of VG.
Keisa
Comment Posted by: Nolrog on May 7, 2007 03:35 PM
Not sure how this became a Vanguard article, with all the replies as such. Thought we were talking about the 1-year expansion cycle for EQ.
Anyway, with regards to diplomacy in Vanguard, the Vanguard devs have stated that the AI is not really that great right now, which is why the NPCs have an extra card than they should based on their skill. That's something they were working on, and when the AI is improved, the extra card will go.
I know what you mean about playing the same game over and over. I found a couple NPCs in Tursh (two of which have since been removes) where I could go and play over and over and over, using the same deck and beat them about 95% of the time (lost once in a while when I wasn't paying attention.)
So, how about that 1 year expansion cycle for EQ. . . . .
Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on May 7, 2007 03:53 PM
1 Year expansion timelines.
First I think it's important that people keep in mind, that the "next" expansion is due out in November. What ever the content, etc., it's not part of the 1 year cycle.
That said, a jaundiced eye should be used in reading everything in the latest producers letter. In a nutshell, nothing that was said was new. Pretty much the same verbage was used by Brenlo when addressing the community at large after the fiasco of Gates of Discord, and the first players summit.
The Everquest community sits now years later, with very few of the changes that where promised at the first summit made true.
Actually, the key point everyone should cling to is, the developers as a whole all said they had been given the controls to make sure that never again would an unfinished product be put out the door.
Yet, it seems, they where not being all that truthfull at the time.
If a prediction should be made at this early hour in the game of SOE public relations vs. the existing user base; it is this: What ever SOE says is no doubt something that they will claim later was never promised(tm). That prediction is something you can take to the bank.
Comment Posted by: Stile on May 7, 2007 04:08 PM
The whole Vangaurd thing just might be correct. Vangaurd is a great game, it just needs some minor tweaks. And I can see Sony recognizing that and wanting to take advantage of it by buying into it. Or just flat out buying it. We don't know for sure what the outcome will be as of yet since no one is talking. But that just might be part of the reason Sony is going with the yearly expansion cycle for Everquest.
I play Vangaurd, and I find it to be a very enjoyable game. Keisa made some very salient points however, and I'd like to respond to them.
++++++++++++
Vanguard's biggest problem, without a doubt, is that it requires a high end system to play...
++++++++++++
Very true. I have a new (January) XPS 700 with an 8800 and 4 gig of ram. And I get stutter lag when first going into some chunks or cities (chunks are what Vangaurd calls zones, except the zone time is very fast, on the order of 3 seconds). But then again, I have my resolution set to 1920x1600 and almost everything maxxed out in the video options. Even so, the hardware requirements is a big problem right now.
++++++++++++
Vanguard is supposed to be like the original EQ1, but when I play it, I feel more like I'm playing WOW...It might take a hell of a lot longer than WOW, but there are an overabundance of quests that take anywhere from 15 minutes to 2 hours to do that can be solo'd. The only way that I see that it is like EQ1 is that there are more timesinks in this game than any game I have ever played...It is divided into smaller, more digestible bites, but the game itself is one long grind, be you adventuring, tradeskilling, harvesting, or doing diplomacy.
++++++++++++
Vanguard does have a good number of quests, a good quest log that actually guides you on what your steps are for completing a quest, there are a good number of mobs available to beat on and they are populated in areas suitable for various level ranges. If that's like WoW, then that's fine by me and it's about time. And speaking of time, yeah, it takes a while to do things. So what? What kind of enjoyment would you get from an MMO if you maxed your level in a week? As you yourself point out, at least it is portioned into small enough bits to get something done each night. THANK YOU for that Sigil. Yes, although it does take time, you can solo for quite a bit...until you hit the high 20s and 30s, where it slows down considerably for the soloer. Most quests at that level require a group to complete and the mobs get harder to solo too. But if you can't solo to your twenties in EQ1, you aren't hunting the right places.
Grinding, yep, there is a lot of grinding. However, most of it is for faction. You see, there are a lot of quests that you cannot get until you have a certain amount of faction. And many of these have outstanding armor or weapon rewards.
And yes, crafting is a grind as is diplomacy. But crafting has always been a grind, in my eyes. I will agree that the Diplomacy grind is a little much, but only a little.
++++++++++++
I have done tradeskills in almost every MMO I have ever played, and VG tradeskills has to be the most tedious, boring system ever. The system is somewhat similar to EQ2, except where EQ2 is dynamic and interactive, VG's is menu driven. When I say menu driven, I mean that you perform an action, get results, then choose another action. This is the first game I've played where I just flat out decided I won't do tradeskills because it was not enjoyable.
++++++++++++
That is a valid interpretation. However, let me point out that the "menu" system (not really what you'd traditionally call menus, but close enough I suppose) allows for you to stop crafting at any point, go do something IRL that comes up, return, and be exactly where you were and continue.
Also, there ARE dynamics to crafting in Vangaurd, just not "real-time" dynamics as in EQ2. That is, you will definitely get complications that are random, to a certain extent, to which you will have to respond, a-la EQ2. It's just that you can take as much time as you want to select the response you want to make. And this is important due to the following...
The kicker with crafting in Vangaurd is it is entirely points-driven. No power, no endurance, just points. That is, each thing you do, from an action to advance the quality of the item, to an action that advances the progress, to all the response actions for complications, they all use up points from your fixed allotment for the recipe. So, crafting requires thought, at every point, as to whether to increase progress at the cost of quality, and vice-versa. PLUS, there are the random gods-forsaken complications. So, much more planning is required to come out with a high-quality item.
++++++++++++
Diplomacy introduced a new and interesting way to play the game. Basically, you play a card game where your cards determine your skills at diplomacy. Using your cards (diplomatic skills), you sweet talk, cajole, or threaten your opponent into coming around to your point of view. My one complaint is that since the decks are static for all the NPCs and randomness has little to no affect on the game, and you have to win a gagillion games to build skill and win quests. This means playing the same game over and over with little to no variation. I think it is a good start, but all NPCs should randomly choose cards so that games are interesting instead of being highly repetative. If I have to beat the same three NPCs 100 times to go on to the next set of NPCs, then those NPCs should not always play the exact same way. I really like diplomacy, but don't know if I'm going to be able to stand the grinding aspect.
++++++++++++
Yes, and no. As you restate, the cards ARE your diplomacy skills. But you don't have access to your entire deck in a parlay (the name for a diplomatic "fight"), you have to select a set of your cards to use beforehand. Which to choose? Well, there are some indicators on the NPC to help guide you as to the type of "combat" they favor, but that's all you get the first time you parlay with someone to determine what cards you want to pick. And altough all NPCs have access to the same decks, they don't all use the same cards in a parlay. Many NPCs will play their cards differently from others to a certain extent. And learning how a particular NPC uses their cards can take several parlays, even a dozen or so depending on the difficulty of the parlay. And let me tell you, they can be HARD. Depending on how much higher the NPC's diplomacy skill is than yours, the parlay can get to be extremely challenging or even impossible to win. So there is definitely challenge involved learning the different NPCs. However, yes, once you do learn an NPC it becomes a matter of choosing the same cards over and over and over...until you've beaten them as many times as you need for faction or diplomacy skillups or w/e.
Diplomacy is also how a vast portion of the game's lore is presented, and it's all fascinating. Sigil did a great job with the lore. All you lore-junkies will love it.
Most of the big issues that I have with the game don't involve the game itself at all. Lag, crashing to desktop after chunking a few times, getting stuck in geometry, grouping issues like being dropped from group when chunking and some odd looting issues where noone in the group can loot an item because the game thinks another item is being rolled on even though there isn't. Those kind of things. Each alone isn't too bad, but some nights you get all of them and it can be annoying.
All in all I give Vangaurd a thumbs up, but they need to work on these things and make the game completely stable. If they do, it will be just as fun as Wow or anything out there, but with some challenge to it. Sony may see this and just may be planning to snap it up.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 7, 2007 04:11 PM
"I don't think an expansion that's twice as big is twice as expensive to develop...[various good points]"
It all depends on what you mean by "twice as big" (and I was rather vague about it). The things you describe, like adding a couple more models rather than doubling the number, or adding more missions to the same zones, are exactly what I expect them to do. I just wouldn't call the result "twice as big."
The bottom line is that I think we're going to see downsizing (though perhaps not until after the next expansion ships). How big an impact that has on the game experience will depend on how creative the devs can be about using the reduced resources. But the obvious things like reducing the number of unique models and reusing zones, are things players do notice and I, at least, don't like.
Comment Posted by: Stile on May 7, 2007 04:37 PM
Hmm, after reading my post I see my point might be lost in all the Vangaurd talk, for which I apologise. My point was this: In my opinion Vanguard is a great game. It's like WoW but with much more challenge. Fun, beautiful artwork, entertaining, engaging and it doesn't go by too fast. It just needs some tweaking. Sony isn't stupid. They can see this.
After I read your previous article about whether Sony is abandoning EQ1, not a few days later rumors were floating around that Sony was buying Vangaurd. I was completely floored. I immediately thought about how disastrous this could be for EQ1 and it's diminishing subscriber numbers if it were true. Then Brad confirms that there actually IS talk going on.
Now comes news that Sony is moving to a yearly EQ1 expansion release cycle. And this makes my spider sense tingle (to tie into that odd Spiderman 3 post). Your ideas could be all there is Loral, but it could also be we now see Sony's plan for it's shot at a million-plus subscriber MMO.
Comment Posted by: nctrader on May 7, 2007 07:01 PM
Quote:
"But I think its safe to say that both Sigil and SOE see the potential of a mind blowing game by the end of the year. Whats needed, bottom line, is some time, and how to get that time is whats being worked out. And so I still see a 500k+ game, I was just off by a year for a variety of reasons, some under my control, many not. And I think SOE sees this as well. To pull it off however, requires a funded and supported Sigil and a well marketed Vanguard with these different target audiences identified and solid plan on how to reach them all, and then a solid execution of said plan, hitting them hard, pushing these WoW everywhere point of purchase materials from the front to the very back.. In the meantime, the Vanguard that was launched in early 2007 continues to move forward, with much of what Ive talked about patched in over time, and the rest in the first expansion (or re-launch, or whatever we all agree upon in terms of product and service placement)."
This one section says a lot to me about the state of the game for Vanguard and the expected influx of SOE resources (people, money and man hours) associated of getting to this point of the "New" vision.
If Brad's "newly, updated, improved, Vision" from his sound bites above come true, I see a totally new game in SoH by year end or 1QTR 2008. What does this mean for EQ IMO.....even less of what you have received now in the short term. I see some potential major sacrifices on the part of EQ to fund (meaning overall resources) this new venture if SOE jumps in the game as both SOE/Sigil may seem vigilant to try and take down the GIANT called WoW.
Comment Posted by: My Life For Auir on May 7, 2007 08:12 PM
It's a market trend, and it means that for the staff they can lead more "normal" lives. Given that they stay up during cycle releases for hours on end and what not.. it's just not healthy. Older you get, the more you own and have the more it owns you. There's a bit about also employee retention.
Comment Posted by: Klonn Darkbane on May 7, 2007 09:07 PM
"What the game needs is a re-launch of sorts, including targeted marketing campaigns, an all-around successful move by gamers to the next generation of hardware, continued good word of mouth viral marketing by those who are already playing, enjoying, and re-subscribing."
Stop living in the past. With all the alternatives available today, you don't get a second kick at the can. Customers will no longer put up with the premature launch of a buggy game and will not fund its development. Your "vision" of 500K subscribers for an EQ style timesink with the added bonus of the "SOE experience" (poor quality, incompetent marketing, adversarial customer service, broken promises or outright lies) is a pipe dream.
Comment Posted by: Brogan on May 7, 2007 10:26 PM
People that think a game can overcome a catastrophic launch are in for a big dissapointment in my opinion.
You get one chance to launch. Do it well and you may have a bright future. Do it poorly and you will probably never recover, no matter how much you improve the game later. EQ and WoW both had "IT" at launch, and both were polished enough that the bugs were mostly just annoying.
Those that failed miserably at launch have never reached their initial numbers again. VG missed its opportunity.
Comment Posted by: bluetooth on May 8, 2007 03:30 AM
Brad's Vision:
Target bored WoW players with cutting edge systems. Way to shoot for the stars! Poor, poor Vanbois.
Comment Posted by: Pants on May 8, 2007 06:27 AM
"Hmm, after reading my post I see my point might be lost in all the Vangaurd talk, for which I apologise. My point was this: In my opinion Vanguard is a great game. It's like WoW but with much more challenge. Fun, beautiful artwork, entertaining, engaging and it doesn't go by too fast. It just needs some tweaking. Sony isn't stupid. They can see this."
_______________________________________
Except Sony doesn't have a history of doing "just some tweaking" to games when they attempt to turn them around. If they get creative control of Vanguard in the deal, or buy it outright, expect to see a major changes at some point. See SWG and EQ2 as evidence, moreso with SWG. They made some big changes to those games to try to garner more interest in them.
In any case I agree with what others have said. You get one chance to get it right, at release. People no longer have to, or are willing to, tolerate buggy, overly demanding (hardwarewise and timewise) or unfinished games. There is way too much competition out there so that if a game gets a bad rep because of a hasty release, people will not give it a second look. You would think after years of company after company making the mistake of releasing too early having their games flop (or at least not come close to subscription expectations) that some would learn, some never do though. If Vanguard is supposed to be as much better as Brad claims it will be by the end of the year, then perhaps they should've waited till the end of the year to release it.
As for the new schedule for EQ expansions, whatever. EQ will probably be around for at least another 5 years but it will be a shadow of it's former glory. It doesn't matter to me because I stopped playing nearly 3 years ago and never intend on going back. Why should I when I have a gazillion better choices? Still I do find the whole MMO industry intersting and love watching it evolve so I'll be watching what happens to EQ with curiosity.
Comment Posted by: xsi on May 8, 2007 03:04 PM
I guess I'll chime in as the sole voice of optimism here. :P I think it's a good thing, believe it is largely motivated by complaints over the quality of recent expansions (and, most likely, lagging sales on the spring expansions), and think the result will be a single larger, more polished expansion each year, with the dev team hopefully also having time to pursue zone revamps and new models.
Yeah, I'm drinking SOE kool-aid, but I've been hoping they'd switch to yearly expansions for a while now.. and, until we see evidence otherwise, I'm going to hope this means good things for the game.
We won't really know until Nov. 2008 anyway.
As for Vanguard... eh. Don't play it. I've heard some great things about LoTR despite it being a turbine game, so may try that, but I'm also sticking with EQ for the time being.
Comment Posted by: Redhenna on May 8, 2007 04:32 PM
I supect that this descision had zero to do with Vanguard. I believe SoE has deep enough pockets to not have to steal from EQ to help get Vanguard to where it needs to be, and certainly does not need to limit expansions for EQ to pay for Vanguard.
I suspect the reason for the change is due to a steady decline in overall EQ population, and the resultant reduction in expansion sales. SoE feels a need to do something to try and reverse the trend, and so are trying what worked for EQ2, which is taking longer on an expansion(The last EQ2 expansion was very well recieved, with positive comments on it's longer development cycle). Combine that with a significant player outcry for a longer expansion cycle, and more polish for expansions, and I think they see this as a way to retain players better, reduce costs a bit, and maybe encourage old players to return.
Will it work? I dunno. It could work, and will have some positive aspects to it for sure. More polish, more testing time, more development time will allow for fewer bugs, more completeness, and for a larger feel to each expansion. The biggest risks are if they can release enough with each expansion to keep players interested for a year(running out of things to do in an expansion is not as bad when the next is two months off, as opposed to running out of things to do with 6 months to wait), and the fact that they cannot afford a bad expansion any more due to the very long time between expansions(ie, 1 year with a PoR crap expansion being current would not be fun).
A couple other possible concerns are that, with a one year cycle, they limit some of their flexability. Right now, no new AA's every other expansion is not too bad, but with a 1 year cycle time, you would pretty much have to include AA's every single expansion as one example.
Another concern is with the next expansion. It has to have enough to keep players going for a full year, but does not have that full year development time. It is very important that this next expansion does not come off as rushed, has a whole lot to do, and is reasonably complete on release.
Overall, this could be an overall good thing, if done properly. If the expansions have the polish, the testing, enough content and things to do to carry player interest for a full year, then this might work well. Some one suggested here that each of these expansions should include all previous content in the purchase price, and I agree, each should be something that new players can use to access EQ. If this is done, and done right, it could be a great thing for EQ...but if it is done poorly, it has the potential to be very very bad for the game overall. A game can lose alot of subscriptions over a year, for just one bad expansion.
Comment Posted by: Skuz on May 8, 2007 07:12 PM
I think about what Brad McQuaid wrote & smile, the guy just doesn't get it.
Mass-Market penetration will never be achieved on a game that requires cutting-edge technology, by the time the technogolgy gets here.....it's an old game.
One of the reasons WoW was so successful in the first place was it didn't need a super-powered pc to run it, crappy 299.99 pc's could run it, laptops could run it, etc etc, you know, the kind of pc's in the average working class family, the kind of pc's blue-collar workers can afford to own.
SoE is the retirement-home for MMO's, & I truly do not see them pushing Vanguard, I see them putting it in the same stable as eq2.
If they try to promote Vanguard & fail miserably I wonder what the eventual outcome will be.
Make a solid attempt at developing a new MMO that runs just fine on joe bloggs the shelf-stackers pc, but runs like the most amazing wet dream graphics on the nasa supercomputer owning tech jocks pc too?
Or might they come back to where it all started, to the father of 3d fantasy MMO's, & re-examine their roots & develop & promote & advertise & target new audiences with the most expansive virtual world there is, re-develop the low & mid & upper end game to compete with WoW, not by changing the currently existing gameply but by adding to it WoW-style gameplay (in the non raid game) as an option?
Comment Posted by: Nolrog on May 8, 2007 09:20 PM
>>> If they try to promote Vanguard & fail miserably I wonder what the eventual outcome will be.
I don't see how SOE can lose here. If they are able to make it a stable, fun game with a decent sized popluation (say 100K) then they look like a genious. If they fail, and the game never becomes more than a niche game, then they can say well, Sigli screwed it up so badly, it was unrepairable.
Either way, they don't lose.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 9, 2007 12:10 AM
"I don't see how SOE can lose here."
How about money down the drain? Reread what Brad is saying and it all comes down to "We need a lot more money from SOE." 100k subscribers may be enough to make it profitable to keep the game running--but I doubt it will pay off the investment in developing it. For that they really need a huge jump in subscription numbers. Personally I don't see it happening, but SOE doesn't have anything else that isn't already in decline.
Comment Posted by: Fubar on May 9, 2007 12:34 AM
Unfortunately, Vanguard will cannibalize EQ and EQ2 player populations. For the most part, WoW gamers are not hardcore and won't be attracted to the huge timesink that is Vanguard unless it's dumb downed beyond recognition. Vanguard received a lot of support from the hardcore elite fanbois during its development but that core group is limited in numbers. Why develop a hardcore game for a niche market when most of the paying player population is casual? Isn't it better to have 10% of the casual market than 50% of the elites? Eventually, every company is in business to make money, not to back some ideological "Vision". The hardcore gamers need the casuals to fund their MMO's but it's not true the other way around.
Comment Posted by: Nolrog on May 9, 2007 07:05 AM
>> 100k subscribers may be enough to make it profitable to keep the game running--but I doubt it will pay off the investment in developing it.
That may be true. However, the costs for developing the game were already spent, by Sigil. SOE wouldn't have to bear that burden. They just have to pay for the changes to the game from now on (or from whenever the game becomes SOE's.)
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 9, 2007 11:59 AM
First off, SOE would buy Vanguard and probably Sigil--Brad's message can be read as an attempt to raise the price. That's the first cost.
Then it looks like they'd have to put a lot of resources into it. Programmers to squash crash bugs or reoptimize the code to reduce system requirements are not cheap, let alone developing new content that might make the game attractive to a broader audience. That's the second cost.
Then they "relaunch" with a major marketing campaign. That's the third cost.
Now they can scale back the changes or the marketing, but that just lowers the already low probability of success. Success meaning gaining enough subscribers to make running the game profitable. Of course we don't have any numbers, but if Sigil were breaking even I don't think they'd be even considering selling out.
So I agree that SOE's reputation isn't on the line here, but its bottom line is.
And as for Vanguard picking up WoW players...the only people I've heard complaining about getting bored with the WOW expansion are truly casual players. Apparently they mostly solo, don't seem to be interested in even the small group dungeons, and don't seem to want to repeat anything--and they're getting three new zones in the next patch. I don't know if Blizzard can keep them happy forever, but there's no way they'll become Vanguard customers. Meanwhile, the hardcore raiders are getting a new high-end raid dungeon and their top issues addressed (including an across the board buffing of raid gear to guarantee it's always better than anything from small groups). The reality is that Blizzard takes very good care of its hardcore players. If Vanguard's revitalization plan depends on luring hardcore players away from WoW, I think they're in for another major disappointment.
To tie this to the official topic though: SOE has plenty of money available. They can do anything they can convince the accountants will be profitable. That includes spending as much on developing both Vanguard and EQ as they think each game justifies. They don't have to choose between them (except when it comes to marketing).
Comment Posted by: Nolrog on May 9, 2007 03:10 PM
>>> To tie this to the official topic though: SOE has plenty of money available. They can do anything they can convince the accountants will be profitable. That includes spending as much on developing both Vanguard and EQ as they think each game justifies. They don't have to choose between them (except when it comes to marketing).
I agree completely, with the exception of the mareketing. They don't have to choose between them to market either. They could bring new people into both those games (as well as EQ2).
Comment Posted by: Redhenna on May 9, 2007 03:28 PM
AS far as marketing, I got a feeling what is going on is that the EQ devs want a major marketing push(means job stability for them). That is part of why they made TSS 1-75, and put some real effort in low level areas. This gave the marketing department room to market. I think the problem is that marketing does not feel that the costs of advertising is going to generate a profit. If they spend, say, 500k on marketing, and gain 1k new subscriptions, well, that is not a good return on investment.
I am not sure I agree that an agressive advertising campaign would not be profitable, I also don't have enough info to really make an educated guess. I suspect though that this is why it has not happened though.
Comment Posted by: Nolrog on May 9, 2007 03:40 PM
>> If they spend, say, 500k on marketing, and gain 1k new subscriptions, well, that is not a good return on investment.
I think they can do better than 1K if they tailor the message properly.
Just look at how aggressively Blizzard markets WoW, even though they have 8 or 9 million people. You still see that game all over the place. $1.99 trial disks in gas stations (yes gas stations), and free ones in every computer magazine on the planet. Heck, if they were to be able to appeal to just 1/4 of one percent of the WoW population, that would add 20K subscriptions right there. That's not an unreasonable thing to shoot for. There are at least that many who maxed out levelling in several characters and are looking for something to do. They don't call WoW Waiting On Warhammer for nothing. ;-)
Comment Posted by: Redhenna on May 9, 2007 04:14 PM
Nolrog, I am not going to argue the point...I dunno for sure if advertising would be economically feasable. I am just suggesting why I think SoE has not been agressive in advertising EQ.
Comment Posted by: Loral on May 10, 2007 06:24 PM
Secrets of Faydwer coming in November 2007
Features include:
Level cap increase to 80 including new spells and AAs.
Zones based around Faydwer
A plot line involving a gnomish necromancer, his floating mechanical citadel, and Kerafyrm!
Comment Posted by: nctrader on May 11, 2007 12:37 AM
SMED SPEAKS!!!
LINK:
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13876
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
POST OF LINK:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Industry News
May 10, 2007
Q&A: Smedley On SOE's Hustle To Evolve
Sony Online Entertainment's president John Smedley is a confident man. At this year's Gamer's Day event for the EverQuest-creating Sony division and sister firm to PlayStation 3 creator SCEE, he introduced the heads of the company's different development studios with the air of a man who sees new opportunities on the horizon.
He had a good deal of excitement and enthusiasm for the newly announced Rise of Kunark expansion for EverQuest 2, the ongoing progress for Gods and Heroes, and the quiet continuation of other SOE titles.
But new projects on the horizon are what he feels passionate about right now. SOE is adapting to the times with new business models, new genres of massively multiplayer games, mobile gaming, and a focus on appealing to gaming habits abroad. The most significant new announcement is an Asian-focused online game based on Stephen Chow's frantic movie Kung Fu Hustle.
Gamasutra sat down with Smedley to talk about his vision for Sony Online's expansion beyond its traditional Western and monthly subscription-based roots, and his concept for the future of online games.
With the focus on future titles and on new payment methods, is the future of SOE 'anything but fantasy MMOs'?
John Smedley: It's not anything but fantasy MMOs. That's still our core. We're still investing very heavily in that. Vanguard you can see, and we'll be having some big news to announce on that within the next two weeks. It's imminent. That's certainly going to stay a part of our company, a lot of us still love fantasy games, and we're going to continue with them. But our feeling is that we need to take this beyond just fantasy.
That's been the successful model to date. A lot of us play shooters, and play heavily. There's two Counter-Strike games a day at our office; during lunch and after work there are always playing these things in our company. There's a lot of people who want to take things outside of fantasy. Down the line we have the DC license, and you'll be hearing more from us on that.
You seem to be interested in new business elements as well; can you tell us a bit about that?
We're trying to introduce new business models, trying out new ways of paying for a game. Things that are 'core', such as game balance, will be treated as sacred. You can't just go buy a more powerful sword in this concept. It's more about trying to give players multiple ways to play. We see the subscription barrier as a pretty significant hurdle to playing.
Getting players over that will be a big deal. I don't see this getting back to the traditional MMOs. Kung Fu Hustle is our first big experiment with this, what we call the 'velvet rope' model. We we are going to do is evolve towards this other model. But evolve quickly; we have three games coming out in a fifteen month timeframe here. We'll try it out, see what happens, see if it grows the market. If it does, we'll make changes to future titles.
Lowering the barrier of accessibility - is that something you're looking to bring back to the traditional MMOs?
Not really, but we do have other big things slated for the future along those lines. As you can imagine, the SOE Denver studio [working on digital versions of a number of CCGs] is a launching point for future projects. We're going to have a good-sized announcement in early August. The technology behind their current releases is very flexible; we can have a chess engine, a checkers engine, a poker engine - their system is very powerful. They're really sharp guys, and they have a lot of great technologies.
Something seemed a bit different about the LA studio; they're folks who were doing their own thing within Sony's outer structure, and now they're part of your organization. What do you think of those guys?
We as SOE about four years ago did Wheel of Fortune; I carry my phone around not just because it's an email device, I'm a freak about phones, a lot of us are. Sony Pictures had a mobile group, and they decided to move it under us; it just made common sense. They're really talented, award-winning stuff.
They're working on [newly announced titles] such as Snoop Dogg Cruisin', Snoop Dogg Boxing - wild stuff. There's a much bigger world out there than us PC gamers, and it's pretty stunning the work that they've done. They've worked with SCEA on God of War, and they're doing some PlayStation 3 downloadable stuff for us - Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy, eventually we want to see that hooked into Home.
Are you folks involved with the Home project at all? I know you're running the PlayStation Network...
Our end is the back end, we're doing some stuff to support it. Some of it is not announced yet.
There seems to be a lot of focus on newer games, things on the horizon. Will there be a push back towards getting some of the older games into the public eye?
Well, our retention has gone up on a number of games, not down. The teams have their heads down, they're working hard, and we're learning from past mistakes. In the case of EverQuest 2, it's still a very very healthy business for us. In terms of getting it in the public eye, that's the purpose of the free updates; we're trying to target several large-scale free things to add to the world.
We want people to know that we're not just slamming out expansion packs. I think that was a mistaken strategy that we had for a while. It decreased our quality level. The teams, and myself included, just get to the point where you want to be super proud of what you're releasing, and we wanted more time to polish things, and so we said 'the heck with it' and went with it that way.
So then, to your thinking, people are somewhat focused already on EverQuest and EverQuest 2 and Star Wars Galaxies. Can you explain where a game like Kung Fu Hustle fits in?
Sure. Kung Fu Hustle [developed by Sony's Taiwanese studio SOGA] is a 2D online fighting game, and the idea is that players will be free to play every day. A certain number of times per day, they can hop on and fight their friends, and we have a mechanic where if they're good they can keep on playing.
Truth is, I don't know how well it's going to do. I love the game. It was made for Asian markets, so I think it's going to do well here, but it is kind of a different mechanic where you 'feed the machine'. If you're good, you can just keep on playing, which is neat.
It runs on the notion of eight on eight multiplayer... it's not massively multiplayer, but there's a number of titles like that over there, racing games and such. That's huge. It plays really well, and a lot of people like that sort of anime style. I hope people judge it for themselves.
[UPDATE - 05/10/07, 5.25pm PST: Fixed phrase from 'non-core' to 'core' - now reads: "Things that are 'core', such as game balance, will be treated as sacred."]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ONE KEY QUOTE:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"John Smedley: It's not anything but fantasy MMOs. That's still our core. We're still investing very heavily in that. Vanguard you can see, and we'll be having some big news to announce on that within the next two weeks. It's imminent. That's certainly going to stay a part of our company, a lot of us still love fantasy games, and we're going to continue with them. But our feeling is that we need to take this beyond just fantasy."
I Guess we'll here about the Vanguard Acquistion in TWO week. I can't wait....../smack!
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 11, 2007 11:13 AM
Interesting...more innovation there than I would have expected. That's smart though.
What I think a lot of people here don't realize is that once you hit the max level in WoW (which isn't hard) it's a whole lot like EQ. So yes, there are plenty of not-really-satisfied customers playing WoW right now, but if they're not happy playing WoW, they're not likely to be any happier playing EQ or Vanguard. And those who would be happy playing EQ or Vanguard are most likely already quite happy playing WoW.
There are lots of current WoW players up for grabs, but it will take something quite different to grab them. Warhammer will probably get quite a few by making the game revolve around PvP. (Chief complaint of the WoW PvPer: getting crushed by people in raid gear. No marketing campaign is going to make them happy playing EQ!) If someone can figure out how to take the WoW outdoor zones (solo quests with the occasional group required) and churn out content like that faster than the truly casual gamer can consume it they'll get a lot more. But games which are fundamentally similar, like EQ and Vanguard, will have a much harder time.
Most disturbing quote: he describes EQ2 as "still a very very healthy business for us." I presume that means EQ1 is not.
Comment Posted by: concerned1 on May 11, 2007 01:06 PM
yeah thats kinda funny. was that some kind of freudian slip? old smedly purposely mentioned EQ2 but not EQ. where does his priority seem to be?
Comment Posted by: xsi on May 11, 2007 04:14 PM
That quote does not really surprise me. Healthy is generally defined as a game that adds more players than it loses. From all accounts, the last EQ2 expansion did very well, and the game is starting to attract more players. EQ1 on the other hand is staying stagnant or losing players overall, I believe.
So, I think that, even if EQ had 250k subscribers, and EQ2 had 150k, you might hear EQ2 being described as healthy, while EQ was not, because EQ2 was slowly growing, and EQ1 was slowly shrinking.
Obviously, I don't have any #s, but it's the sense I get. I also think it's a state of affairs that SOE has itself created, with the total lack of advertisement for EQ.
Comment Posted by: Redhenna on May 11, 2007 04:29 PM
Interestingly enough, EQ2 announced a new expansion today, Rise of Kunark. Among other features, it includes a new playable race, Sarnak. Many classic Kunark zones will make an appearance, including Sebelis.
Link: http://everquest2.station.sony.com/expansions/riseofkunark/index.vm
I really did like EQ2 when I tried it on the free trial, and I think I may end up having to scrounge money around and actually pick it up now. I don't even play the game(yet), and am already more excited about their new expansion than I have been for any EQ expansion in awhile.
Comment Posted by: Skuz on May 11, 2007 08:30 PM
It's known as Smedley talk. Even if EQ2 had 10 subscribers, up from 9 last year, it would be described as healthy because their population is growing. It's also more commonly known as lying. By the way, the numbers I used are accurate within 2 players.
Comment Posted by: xsi on May 11, 2007 08:33 PM
I played EQ2 at launch, and did not much care for it. The gamespy preview of Rise of Kunark tangentially hits on my issue with EQ2 at the time... it felt very claustrophobic.
I've heard great things about the Faydwer expansion, and the Kunark expansion looks good too... (and is getting more press than EQ, naturally), but I'm not going to start another SOE mmo at this point. :)
Comment Posted by: Redhenna on May 11, 2007 09:27 PM
Hmmm...I played the 'Play the Fay' trial hard for the week I could, and was very impressed. Graphically, I don't think any MMO is better, and gameplay was pretty awesome. Of course, whether any game is 'good' or not is strictly subjective, and what one person likes, another may hate(ie, I hated WoW with a passion, and really regret I spent money on it).
Comment Posted by: xsi on May 11, 2007 10:39 PM
"Hmmm...I played the 'Play the Fay' trial hard for the week I could, and was very impressed. Graphically, I don't think any MMO is better, and gameplay was pretty awesome. Of course, whether any game is 'good' or not is strictly subjective, and what one person likes, another may hate(ie, I hated WoW with a passion, and really regret I spent money on it)."
Oh, definitely. I was not actually trying to bash EQ2, but was mentioning one of my issues with the game at launch. I was glad to hear in the preview that the devs had recognized the claustrophobia problem, and is working to fix it with RoK.
By most accounts, EQ2 has changed so much from its state at launch, (and for the better), that it's almost a whole new game. Even when I played, there were some fantastic things about EQ2, including the weapons animations. As an EQ1 monk, I still drool over EQ2's 2hb combat animations. The system requirements were very steep at the time, but I assume that has lessened as technology has improved.
I've been looking somewhat into trying out LoTRO, simply because a lot of people in my dojo are playing it, but I think EQ2 has a lot to recommend it... and certainly has benefited from their switch to a longer development cycle and the large amount of marketing it gets.
Comment Posted by: xsi on May 11, 2007 10:52 PM
Oh, here's the gamespy preview I was referring to:
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/everquest-ii-rise-of-kunark/787428p1.html
Comment Posted by: Skuz Bukit on May 12, 2007 03:35 AM
Comment Posted by: Skuz on May 11, 2007 08:30 PM
It's known as Smedley talk. Even if EQ2 had 10 subscribers, up from 9 last year, it would be described as healthy because their population is growing. It's also more commonly known as lying. By the way, the numbers I used are accurate within 2 players.
Bleh, that's not me, so now there are 2 "Skuz" posting here, so i'll use my full ingame name from now i guess 8(
Comment Posted by: nctrader on May 15, 2007 12:09 AM
Sounds like the Sigil Team is getting thinned out a bit if we give much credence to this blog:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Post of Blog:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The axe finally fell. It was only a matter of time, I suppose. And while many of you may try to spin this to make SOE look bad, apparently this wasn't really their doing. You see, SOE doesn't own Sigil. It doesn't own Sigil now and they won't own them tomorrow. But they do own Vanguard. What fate awaits that game? I don't know. Don't particularly care either.
But I do know that at approximately 4:30PM today, Sigil employees were told to meet outside. At which point they were terminated. On the spot. By whom? Doesn't seem to have been Brad McQuaid, if it was, nobody is talking. But that doesn't seem like something he'd do. But I suppose the executioner is irrelevant since most folks secretly want it to be SOE and it wasn't. As it stands, people were told to come back tomorrow to do their paperwork and some may get hired by SOE.
I contacted SOE since I'm not in the business of burning bridges or spinning news and they had this to say:
"...an announcement is forthcoming tomorrow."
Update: There's some debate over this being ALL employees or just some of them. Obviously, it's not ALL of them - after all, someone had to do the firing. Let's just say that - from what I've heard - they don't have enough employees left to update a casual game... like Snood."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The big points for me are:
"You see, SOE doesn't own Sigil. It doesn't own Sigil now and they won't own them tomorrow. But they do own Vanguard."
and
"Let's just say that - from what I've heard - they don't have enough employees left to update a casual game... like Snood."
Again, if this blog has any merit, then some news should be coming tomorrow about the SOE acquistion of the Vanguard game.
What does this mean for EQ? Less EQ resources in the short term? Another MMO in the SOE fold to compete and potentially take more players away from EQ? Vanguard: The NEW EQ3?
Don't know, just speculating here but having so many MMO's under one roof doesn't bode well for any one game. Might bode well for the Station Pass subscriber though if they have the time to play all of the games offered.
Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on May 15, 2007 04:03 AM
Put bluntly, I don't think many people can be surprised by that blog announcement.
Loral. If you still have an inside track to SOE's developer community, it would be interesting to hear what information is floating around the San Diego offices.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 15, 2007 11:23 AM
In terms of significance for EQ, the existence of Vanguard has always been more important than its ownership. It has always been in direct competition with EQ more than any other game. Insofar as Vanguard takes players away from EQ that's bad for EQ, regardless of who owns it.
SOE has the ability to run MMORPGs cheaply, thanks to its experience and pre-existing infrastructure. It also has the Station Pass to provide a bit of an audience. That allows SOE to buy out games which are failing on their own and then make money off them (see Matrix Online and now Vanguard). But SOE is a big company with deep pockets and access to plenty of credit. They don't have to rob one game to support another. Each game will get the level of resources SOE thinks will generate the most profits, period.
Bottom line: in the short term, this means little or nothing for EQ. In the longer term, it hurts EQ only if SOE manages to improve Vanguard and more EQ players make the switch. Regardless of what Brad says, I'm not holding my breath.
Comment Posted by: nctrader on May 15, 2007 05:36 PM
Might be old news for some buy here is the official SOE announcement on the Sigil/Vanguard Acquisition:
"Publisher Sony Online Entertainment has confirmed that it has acquired Carlsbad, CA-based developer Sigil Online and that studio's debut title, the fantasy-themed massively multiplayer online game Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. Though not all of Sigil Online's employees will be rehired at SOE, much of the staff will join the publisher and continue to work out of the Carlsbad office.
SOE will count the operation among its growing number of worldwide studio locations, including its home base of San Diego, and satellite studios in Seattle, Austin, Denver, Los Angeles, and Taiwan. Sigil co-founder and designer Brad McQuaid, who provided much of the creative vision for SOE's original EverQuest, will work as an external creative consultant.
The Vanguard team included other former SOE talent that had contributed to such games as EverQuest. It was originally to be published by Microsoft. However, the game was eventually published by Sony Online Entertainment and released in January in a state that McQuaid himself has publicly admitted was not ideal. For more on how the game turned out, consult GameSpot's review.
Since the game's launch, Sigil and SOE have worked to maintain and update the game, and as SOE president John Smedley explained to GameSpot in this exclusive interview, there are no plans to change that at this time.
GameSpot: The big news is that SOE is acquiring Sigil, and Vanguard: Saga of Heroes along with it. In your own words, why?
John Smedley: We feel like it's an excellent time and place to do this. We like the people over at Sigil, and we respect the creative work they've done on [the game].
GS: Tell us about how the acquisition is going to be handled. Will SOE be bringing most of Sigil's staff in-house?
JS: We're bringing a little more than half of the staff on board. The majority of the Vanguard team itself is coming onboard at Sony Online Entertainment and will remain in Carlsbad. The studio will be run by a gentleman by the name of Dave Gilbertson who has been running Vanguard for quite some time now. Management of the studio will be run day-to-day, as-is. Also, Brad McQuaid will be kept on in an external position as a creative advisor. In the meantime, we're gonna continue to run the game.
GS: Brad McQuaid has been quoted on public message boards admitting that the game shipped in a non-ideal, incomplete state. How will Vanguard's upkeep be handled once the acquisition is complete? Will development on the game continue, or will it be immediately shuffled onto SOE Station as part of a subscription package?
JS: The game is already on Station Access, and since January, many of the bugs and issues in the game have been addressed, and the rest will be as well. Vanguard is an SOE product and we're going to make sure it gets taken care of. As for the state of the release, well, Sigil only had a certain level of funding, and we contributed as well. But the game is in good shape now. We sold 200,000 copies...I'm not sure many people realize that. It's actually a very healthy game.
GS: What are the longer-term plans for the game? Was there other content planned and in development for the game, or expansion packs?
JS: Absolutely. First and foremost, we have a lot of updates in the works to enhance the existing game and put in new content. Very shortly, a new content release schedule will be posted with more details. The idea is to make the game even better and make the customers happy.
GS: What are the longer-term plans for the Carlsbad studio?
JS: For the time being, Carlsbad will stay focused on Vanguard. Over time, it's going to become part of the San Diego studio. We'll also look to do other things, long-term. For example, some Sigil Games staffers are moving to San Diego to work on an undisclosed project at SOE.
GS: Some business-world cynics point out that McDonalds isn't in the business of fast-food, but of real-estate with its many locations. What's the thinking behind having so many different locations worldwide?
JS: I don't think there's anything cynical about what we do. We go where the talent is. It's that simple. Many of the people working at Sigil used to work at SOE, and they left to chase the dream of working on a new fantasy MMO of their own creation. We're bringing those people back into the fold and we're excited to do so.
GS: Tell us about how this acquisition fits into SOE's overall strategy, which seems much more geared towards console games these days.
JS: Well, our strategy remains focused on very high-quality online games. We think Vanguard fits nicely into that. It's our most high-end game hardware-wise, and it's also our most "hardcore" game...we're not going to turn it into an easy "Care Bear" game. We'll continue with our commitment to the players to make the game the best it can be.
GS: Is there anything else to add about Vanguard or the Sigil acquisition?
JS: Obviously, I'd like to comment on the fact that some Sigil people lost their jobs. We at SOE did our best to keep as many people employed as physically possible. We went out of our way to hire as many people as possible, in some cases, more than budgetary constraints allowed. I'm hoping people feel like they were treated fairly.
GS: One last question: this isn't the first time SOE has "rescued" an online game in a flagging state. Some time ago, SOE picked up The Matrix Online, which seemed to be in a similar situation. Is this sort of thing also a part of SOE's overall strategy, or are they just chance occurrences?
JS: Here's the thing: in many parts of the industry, you're seeing layoffs. In our company, you see growth. We do what we do because of talent, because of people who are good at what they do. You may see games that aren't as successful as [the developers would] like [them] to be, but to us, what are most valuable are the people and the talent."
You can read the source here:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6170763.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;1
Comment Posted by: Loral on May 15, 2007 08:20 PM
It's big news and pretty interesting but it doesn't really affect EQ at all.
Someone else earlier had it right when they said that the big thing about Vanguard is that it requires a pretty powerful system to play. Game companies should figure out, as Blizzard did, that stretching lower powered machines is a lot more effective than building for the highest end hardware. I'm tired of MMOs that run at 15 to 20 frames a second on new hardware.
I doubt this will affect Everquest any more than any of the other MMOs affected it. WoW is still the big game to consider although I hear good things about LOTRO. My wife's playing it and she likes it a lot. Personally, I'm holding out for a next generation MMO for my Nintendo DS.
Comment Posted by: Aarkan on May 15, 2007 11:40 PM
I cannot agree with you more Loral, 110% a DS mmo could be extremely succesful. Though it would need a certain degree of offline parts to it that couldn't or wouldn't be effected by cheat devices which is the only thing that throws a bone into it since an online only game on a portable system may be a little tricky. Though they have the technology and the online set up to do it and do it well. Are you playing Pokemon? I know you must be a Metriod Hunters kind of guy lol.. Speaking of I should pick that up.
Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on May 16, 2007 06:07 AM
Just my 2cp, but I read the announcements of the last few weeks as follows;
Vanguard:SoH is now a soley owned SOE property less than 5 months after launch. Brad is no longer associated with Sigil or Vanguard:SoH directly, but is rather an "external" contractor, one can expect that once any legal issues regarding IP and stock are resolved his contract will end most likely with a non-competition clause in effect. Sigil as a separate corporate entity will no doubt be dissolved as soon as all the legal requirements are met. One can expect that the Sigil stock holders where paid well for the expected valuation of the company, though it would be odd if SOE didn't use the bad market reception as a pressure to push the company valuation down and force the best deal possible. It would be interesting to see if there is a public disclosure of the details of the take over. Someone that knows if Sigil ever became a publicly held company might know them.
EQ: I conjecture SOE is no longer realizing the expected profits from 6 month expansion sales and the previous re-up of lapsed accounts from such. As such they have moved to a slower release schedule, this frees up internal assets to work on other projects. i.e. don't expect an expansion twice as big or twice as good or even polished and well done. Just expect the same stuff with a compression of more levels/aa's and "other fluff" on an annual basis. As has occurred previously, you can expect to see partially finished systems in EQ appear in EQ2 and other SOE titles in a fully flushed out and working fashion. 5 year old bugs (boats anyone), will become 6 year old bugs, etc.
EQ2: EQ2 will continue to be the highest rated (consumer satisfaction poll based on MMORPG.com) and probably most often played (based on station.sony.com forum posts/account numbers) SOE title. As such it should expect to continue to get the lion’s share of spit and polish.
Unnamed: A lot of people see, but apparently don't lock into the fact that Stargate Online, the collectible card game, is a SOE product. There are actually a few SOE products out there that have development houses working on MMO versions with oddly linked intellectual property. In short, there's at least one large fan based title "Stargate SG1" with an MMO in the works that's very closely tied to SOE. It isn't a huge leap to make some well placed guesses as to what the "unnamed" title will be on release.
All of the above said. My final thoughts on the last few weeks boil down to this. Say what you like about Smedley, either you like him or loath him. Personally, I loath him. But I do respect him. I think he's ultimately the cause of the "death" of EQ. That is the failing of the title to maintain 400k (or more) active users. He's made some horrid choices for EQ staff (Absor and Brenlo spring to mind). But that said, he is a very good business man when it comes to making a buck. There's no reason to doubt that SOE's actual profit line in terms of money pushed out vs. money taken in, is up these last few years.
In short, SOE is not going to abandon EQ. It’s a fantastic test bed for ideas where you need a reasonably large audience of people willing to beat on an idea, but where you feel no compelling reason as a company to keep with any consistent theme or process for the title. So long as people are willing to pay either for sole EQ accounts, or Station Pass accounts with active EQ use as part of that account, then you can count on SOE keeping the title alive, even if numbers drop down to the Matrix Online / Vanguard:SoH levels of “active players”.
All that said. So, Loral, how goes Guitar Hero II for you?
Comment Posted by: nctrader on May 16, 2007 06:41 AM
Ex-Sigil employee interview given just over 24 hours after being let go:
http://www.f13.net/index.php?itemid=561#more
I know I've beaten this dead horse pretty good by now but as a major MMO and now a newly acquired SOE product I thought this would be of great interest to those rabid MMO fans that come here weekly to read up on SOE related news.
At the end of the day, a lot of people paid the price for mismanagement and poor execution of a major MMO project. Sadly, those in the driver seat will never feel the pain of those actually doing the work.
Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on May 16, 2007 10:18 AM
nctrader,
Thank you, that was an incredible read.
Comment Posted by: Loral on May 16, 2007 07:02 PM
Aarkan: "Though they have the technology and the online set up to do it and do it well. Are you playing Pokemon?"
I just got it today for my birthday. I'm still getting over my "omg, I'm playing Pokemon, someone shoot me" attitude, but soon I'll be checking it out. My friend in Wisconson and I both got it so we can play online.
Comment Posted by: Loral on May 16, 2007 09:43 PM
nctrader Posted:
Ex-Sigil employee interview given just over 24 hours after being let go:
http://www.f13.net/index.php?itemid=561#more
"
That's one brutal article. I'm guessing every story has multiple views but that still pulls the curtain back on some dark clouds over Vanguard.
There was another article or quote or video clip going around the console circuits talking about how these 20 million budgets on games are just ridiculous. Microsoft released a game for free that a bunch of interns put together.
Gaming doesn't have to be expensive to be good. MMOs require a much bigger investment than most games, but it's probably best to keep them small and simple rather than these huge monstrosities.
Good read, though, even if it is questionable. Any article that hides the source of the interview needs to be taken with a degree of skepticism.
Comment Posted by: Aarkan on May 16, 2007 11:42 PM
HAPPY BIRTHDAY! It really is a great game, and this version is far better than all the ones before it. It's simple enough for 8 year olds and complex enough for adults. When you get a team going and if you want to battle or trade or whatever shoot me an email.
On topic.. sorta... That Vanguard article was really eye opening. I know the Vanguard team LOVED the game as they showed at E3 06 and the game looked spit polished at that point, but then again they were only showing boats, flying, this one dungeon area and character creation... Damn, I think everyone wanted Vanguard to be successful. Though if all they said about SoE is true that really makes me feel good, I've never seen SoE as this horrible villain like some have. They're downsizing the EQ stuff because EQ is what? 7 or 8 years old now? The SWG changes were because of Lucas Arts and the other game they changed drastically was EQ2 and that appears to have been for the better. I really hope that the guys at SoE can pull this one together, and it really makes me sick to hear that about McQuaid... Though most of those original MMO pioneers are hopeless dreamers, IE: Koster and Garriott.. Hopefully their current projects won't follow Brad's lead (or the way Koster left SWG)
Only time shall tell... Until then I have Pokemon.
Comment Posted by: Nolrog on May 20, 2007 08:45 AM
>> What I think a lot of people here don't realize is that once you hit the max level in WoW (which isn't hard) it's a whole lot like EQ.
I really don't think so. Once you hit max level in WoW, all you have left to do is raid for gear. After you hit max level in EQ, you still have some 1800 AAs to get.
>> There are lots of current WoW players up for grabs, but it will take something quite different to grab them.
QFT! SOE should be aggressively marketing to these people. Even if they pulled off 1-2% of the WoW population, which is a small % to shoot for, it could potentially add some 100K+ subscriptions, which ain't too bad.
>> MMOs require a much bigger investment than most games, but it's probably best to keep them small and simple rather than these huge monstrosities.
Interesting thought Loral. Perhaps they tried to do too much with VG, insted of making a smaller game but more polished. Maybe drop one of the continents, with plans to add it in after launch as a freebie (and get rid of all the various human races. Far too many of them, IMO. Fantasy game, fantasy races. Not 20 different flavors of human.) So many things that could have gone better. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on May 21, 2007 04:58 AM
Loral,
I agree that "annonymouse" sources when quoted should always be taken with a grain of salt.
That said, it's revealing that Brad didn't refute much of what was said in his own post mortem interview http://f13.net/index.php?itemid=562
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 21, 2007 12:15 PM
"SOE should be aggressively marketing to these people. Even if they pulled off 1-2% of the WoW population, which is a small % to shoot for, it could potentially add some 100K+ subscriptions, which ain't too bad."
I'm sorry, but this is the kind of wishful thinking that hurt Vanguard too. The number of people an aggressive marketing campaign might convince to switch from WoW to EQ is not 2% or 1%, it's close enough to zero as not to matter. And that's not because WoW is all that innovative or different, it's because WoW is basically the same. Yeah, I'm doing dungeons over and over for reputation points instead of whatever the latest EQ currency is, and I'm working to get my key to Karazhan rather than working on getting flagged for whatever. But it feels the same. We could argue about which is better (obviously I've voted with my feet) but that's not the point.
What is the aggressive marketing campaign going to say? What reason can it give for people to switch? "Come to EQ! We'll give you lots more of the same, but with worse graphics!" I'm not saying there isn't a case for EQ, but I don't think it's something you can convey in a magazine advertisement. It's too subtle, too involved.
Yes, there are lots of WoW players up for grabs. But they're up for grabs because they're not satisfied with the whole Diku-MUD-with-graphics paradigm. The hardcore PvP'ers are indeed "Waiting On Warhammer" because Warhammer is supposedly designed around PvP. Others don't know what they're looking for, because the innovative game that will really satisfy them hasn't been developed yet. But the last thing they'd be interested in is the original Diku-MUD-with-graphics, Everquest.
Comment Posted by: Pants on May 22, 2007 07:33 AM
All I can say after reading those two interviews is wow. It sounds like it was a real mess at Sigil, which is why the game is what it is. The interview with the fired guy is probably for real, as it seems even Brad didn't refute what he said really. He probably wants to remain anonymous so that won't work against him in his attempts to get jobs elsewhere in the industry.
In the end selling out to SOE is probably best for Vanguard. SOE is probably WAY more organized and has their act together way more than that mess. It may be too late for Vaguard to ever be a big hit but it could gain subscribers under SOE. This is a good thing really because I do think Blizzard needs some more competition. I get this feeling they are starting to rest too easy on their huge success, and have been making some rather dumb decisions with patches since the expansion came out.
Comment Posted by: elfguy on May 22, 2007 09:05 AM
I think too many people are dismissing EQ2. From someone who wants the rich world of Norrath, with a modern engine, and full company support, EQ2 is the best choice right now. After playing WoW a little more than a year, I got sick of it (for many reasons, like the terrible community, lack of regular content releases, focus on pvp..) and gave EQ2 a try and that is clearly the best game out there for people who want an MMO harder and more deep than WoW offers.
Comment Posted by: Pants on May 22, 2007 09:39 AM
I've played WoW since release and I'm a bit tired of it myself. I wouldn't say there has been a lack of content added because they have added 6 new instances, revamped some of the older instances, and came out with a large expansion since release.
I do wholeheartedly agree on the terrible community comment though. I've played MMOs going back before Ultima Online (although they weren't all that massive for MMOs back then) and I can say without any reservation that WoW has the most idiotic, immature and overall most annoying player base out of any MMO I've ever played, by far. Yes it has a huge player base which is why you see more of it, but as a percentage of the total I see WoW players as worse than any other. In fact I'm amazed some of these people can even login without help.
The other huge problem WoW has in recent month is the gold seller spam. People are getting constantly harassed by these companies that spam ads for their websites. In a few hour period you might get a few dozen tells from the level one characters they create. Blizzard has not taken any effective steps to stop this for months, and even the steps they finally are taking are not enough. People are forced to download and use mods to try to block tells based on text filtering or just flat out block all tells from level ones. This is not acceptable.
I did recently try Lord of the Rings Online but found it to be kind of boring. The game seems like too much of a copy of WoW except for the story of course. The quests are a lot like WoW's, the UI is a lot like WoW's, and even the combat is really not that different. Plus the mob animations and graphics seem kind of cheaply done. I was watching some wolves walk around and they looked like all four of their legs were in splints and they couldn't bend at the joints. They kind of just slided across the ground like an episode of South Park.
I have actually been considering trying EQ2 lately but I've been really wary of it for some reason. I did not leave EQ1 with the best feeling about it or SOE. I refuse to play Vanguard at all, and for good reasons that seem justified after reading all about it. I am really awaiting Warhammer but that's still a long ways off. I kind of think the whole MMO industry has fallen into a rut lately. I have seen very little innovation in recent years. It seems most companies just try to copy ideas that have worked in previous games with only minor adjustments. The only truly innovative game I've tried in years has been City of Heroes. It was a wonderful experience at first but it wore thin because Cryptic didn't really add much new to the game, instead focusing way too much time on nerfs and changing the way powers and enhancements work. I got tired of waiting for them to add new stuff so I gave up.
Hopefully someday somebody can come up with something groundbreaking that will break this rut. Something that is different but yet as well polished as WoW was when it came out. I think most players have had enough of hype and promises of games that do not deliver because of rushing them out the door before they are ready, or because they are too buggy. Yeah it's a business and publishers want to see their money quicker, but rushing them out before they are done gains them nothing but a bad rep and not enough money to pay for the development.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 22, 2007 11:39 AM
The trouble with innovation is that it's risky, and publishers are risk-averse. And you can't blame them too much with budgets in the tens of millions! The days are long gone when three guys who believed in their new and original idea could make it into a game. On the other hand, Vanguard was banking on its proven formula and ended up being clobbered by games that simply did the same thing better. Maybe publishers will take that to heart and be a bit more open to new ideas as a result.
(An invitation to all those who are, quite rightly, turned off by WoW's generally awful community: Get thee to an RP server! No role-playing required, just don't go out of your way to disrupt any actual role-playing you happen to run into. Much of the annoying behavior you see elsewhere is just plain verboten, and the tighter ruleset scares off a lot of the riff-raff anyway. As for gold spam, today's patch may or may not fix the problem, but SpamSentry is highly effective and trivially easy to set up.)
Comment Posted by: wormy on May 22, 2007 01:34 PM
EQ is dead - no player that left the game will ever return.
10, 15, 20, ... levels to catch up, several 1000 AAs to catch up, and no chance in hell to get the needed equipment/spells to survive current content - that's what keeps former players away.
It doesn't matter how often expansions are released anymore, so the decision to cut down on them (and the overall costs) is right.
V:SoH is dead too - the cause of it's failure was Brad. He didn't realize that his Vision(tm) and the game that was in the making had nothing in common.
The game was broken in beta already, Brad ignored the writings on the wall. Most of the testers wrote about it, he closed his eyes to the existing problems.
And don't ignore the fact, that duping of items and gold was rampant. Sigil could not fight the billions of bugs in the code...
Blizzard on the other hand, did the right thing(tm) with their expansion. Everyone was entitled for a new deal(tm). No problems for returning players, even after one year of absence, to catch up to the current game content.
It's not a great game, but it's a nice game to play - until some really good game is showing up *g*.
Comment Posted by: Redhenna on May 22, 2007 03:30 PM
There are definatly MMO's out there that are not the same old thing, that are innovative to a degree, and do things differently. Eve Online springs to mind...no levels to grind, the skill system means that new players catch up to at least close to old players rapidly, and there are a ton of ways to play the game. If you play nothing but level based fantasy MMO's, you have only yourself to blame for thinking all MMO's are the same.
As far as EQ being dead, it does not look like it. Was checking out my old guilds message b oard today, and seeing those who left for the new Wow expansion are all coming back now. EQ really seems to have a sizable cyclic population...the same people leave when the next big MMO hits, and those people come back within 2 to 6 months, regular as clockwork.
Comment Posted by: Pants on May 22, 2007 08:43 PM
Actually I do play on 2 different RP servers and have for a long time. While it is better than PVE and PVP servers it is not perfect, or even close. I have noticed a marked decline in the maturity and intelligence of the player base on RP servers too in the last year. I think many people join the game and don't know what RP means when they select a server, and many times trouble makers from other servers switch to RP ones so they can make fun of RPers, not that I see much RP going on anymore anyway. The trade channel is frequently filled with garbage and arguments over absolutely nothing. It's better than the other server types but I'm not sure that's saying much when it comes to WoW.
As for SpamSentry yes I do use it, and love it. It's probably my favorite addon which is kind of a sad commentary on what goes on in WoW. It's sad that I am forced to use a mod to block unwanted tells from people who shouldn't even be allowed to log in because Blizzard has failed to do their job for so long. We'll have to wait to see if their new anti-spam tactics are going to work but I have a feeling the spammers will find ways around it. I think Blizzard needs to be way more aggressive on this but they seem reluctant to take harsh measures.
Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on May 23, 2007 02:00 AM
WoW is to some extent a victim of it's own success. Just as many "oldschool" EQ players lamented when the Diablo 2 kiddies started to flock to EQ, so too WoW suffers from many of the same player issues. After all WoW draws it's lifes blood not just from the disenfranchised ex-EQ, ex-DAoC, etc., groups, but they also draw in the ex-Warcraft, ex-Diablo, ex-Starcraft players.
Comment Posted by: Wibble on May 23, 2007 03:56 AM
To those of you looking for something a bit different, try reading up on Pirates of the Burning Sea: http://www.burningsea.com
I really can't wait - I haven't been this eager for a game to come out for as long as I can remember.
Oh, and to whoever said that nobody would ever come back to EQ after leaving for a while, that's nonsense: I did just that recently, and so have several others as you can see by the posts in the EQ Newbie forum.
Comment Posted by: Sigh on May 23, 2007 12:10 PM
As an off-topic note, your dev tracker link is busted.
The correct link is:
http://forums.station.sony.com/eq/posts/listByGroup.m?group_id=1008
Comment Posted by: Glormane on May 24, 2007 07:03 AM
Loral definitely seems disillusioned with EQ these days. WoW seems more his bag. Many criticisms aimed at EQ by some (not all of them by Loral).
EQ has stolen ideas from WoW. Attunable items apparently an idea adopted by EQ that was originally used in WoW. Well arguably WoW built a lot of its idea on EQ, and to argue again, both built their games on Dungeons and Dragons. I see no problem of adopting an idea/concept into one game that’s been used in another.
EQ releases expansions too quickly where as WoW has taken time and care over its expansions and releases them less frequently. Yet when EQ slows down its release its (once again) cause for concern.
Heres one the other way around. EQ has more gameplay, lore, history, challenge, call it what you will than WoW. EQ is older than WoW and has had many more expansions and time to refine its systems than WoW. I am not a WoW player, but they are what at Game + 1 expansion? In the games lifeline, that’s like EQ at Kunark expansion. I think if you compared the EQ of then to the WoW of now, it may be another story. WoW shouldn’t be directly compared to EQ for this reason, they are both at different stages of your development.
In conclusion, both games attract different types of players, I am an EQ player, and I see frustration all around me, in the zones I play in, the guild, the boards. I sense this frustration in Loral, from not being able to progress through content, I suspect because of his busy lifestyle. I know others who couldn’t devote the time to raid EQ, or to invest in quests. They tried WOW and found a game they could immerse themselves in very quickly, and which they could drop very quickly with little detriment to their progression.
I also see in EQ individuals who have overcame their frustration and pursue advancement outside raids in EQ, not asking ‘Why cant I’ but asking ‘How can I’. There are some really good quests in there, to pull you up to within punching distance of regular raiders, if you are resourceful enough.
Purhaps Loral, you have found a new niche, and as in many aspects of life, you cant always go back. Your articles recently have reminded me more of a spectator, rather than a player. Clinical and cold, where as the last article on WoW, the expansion article, was full of hope, and dare I say, love.
Comment Posted by: Ghost of Zek on May 25, 2007 05:13 AM
Glormane,
You are 100% correct in that World of Warcraft and Everquest should not be compared directly on a 1 to 1 basis for feature and content. Everquest is after all some 6 years older, with a dozen more expansions.
To be fair to World of Warcraft they have released several packs of free content, not tied to an expansion. Similar to the early days of Everquest.
To be fair to both games, yes World of Warcraft + The Burning Crusade is very similar in progression to Everquest + Ruins of Kunark.
Here's where the frustration comes in Glormane. Everquest has had six more years to tune, refine, and polish it's game than World of Warcraft.
Yet, in Everquest you have now four sets of non-cross compatible gear "coin/point" systems, with non-balanced risk+time vs. reward. You have a trade skill system under going yet another overhaul with still no sign that it will be rational (i.e. still needing to defeat a level 35 mob for a rare drop in order to make level 20 gear).
Yes, for people willing to spend serious numbers of hours on the spoiler sites doing a great deal of research, who also have a fair number of in game assets (be it guild mates, real world friends, or multiple accounts), there are ways to as a non-raider make higher end progress.
The fundamental flaw Glormane is however that no one answers the basic question; why would I want to solo all these hardships just to be able to one day, maybe, raid, in what is by SOE's own definition, not a solo friendly game?
You are 100%, there are "other" things to do in Everquest. The key however is why would I myself, or why would I recommend to someone else, they persue those "other" avenues of limited opportunity in Everquest, than say go play Lord of the Ring, or World of Warcraft, or Eve, or Guildwars, or even Flyff?
Simply put Glormane, there is a very large barrier to being "accepted" into the fold in the Everquest community. The level of distain shown non-raid equiped tanks in pick up groups, or casters with sub 10k mana is appauling. The opportunities for participation in what is supposedly a grouping game are limited.
Comment Posted by: concerned1 on May 25, 2007 01:56 PM
to back up what he said who do you honestly think is gonna want to jump on a 9-10 year old game that is well known in the game community to be non-casual friendly and non-solo friendly. not only those things but arent the level cap and the aa number being increased? to level 80 and 2k aa ? who will want to waste the time and try to jump on that ? and for all of those that claim people are comming back to eq i say B.S. i am sure there are more that quit then come back.my buddy says he seen people come back to eq and what usually happens is they come back all excited and then after about 2 weeks they realize how far behind they are in gear and find it just isnt worth it and quit again soon after.and some of you say " wow has some victims " and " people are tired of wow " , i mean seriously...theres like over 6 million people playing wow. continiously. everquest cant even claim that number total over the 9-10 years its been out.smedly and rashere bet on a "uber " horse. and that horse lost. end of story.
Comment Posted by: Peter Parker on May 26, 2007 04:34 AM
"WoW shouldn’t be directly compared to EQ for this reason, they are both at different stages of your development."
True, in Product Life Cycle Management, WoW is in its Growth stage while EQ is in its Decline/Stability stage. Typically, a product's life cycle is sequential - ie. EQ will not experience another Growth stage, and the existing product is replaced with a newer, improved version.
Comment Posted by: Skuz Bukit on May 26, 2007 08:30 AM
A lot of assumptions are being drawn here that don't necessarily fit the bill.
If SoE chose to it could promote all of their games, Everquest included, & I have no doubt actually would attract new players, Everquest may well be known very well by the gaming community right now, but wow didn't get 6 million subscribers from the gaming community....it wasn't that big.
It opened the market.
There's a far larger number of potential players out there that might well be interested in Everquest but simply haven't heard of it.
Everquest is still setting trends, is still creating genuine innovation, & could be thought of in some respects as a progenitor, yes is plagarises god ideas from other games & then puts it's own twist on them, but thats only done where it will improve the gaming experience as a whole.
And yes there are genuine new players to Everquest still, I've met some whilst levelling twinks.
Comment Posted by: Plymouth on May 26, 2007 04:14 PM
LOL, I see the fanbois are still posting about how players are returning to EQ and newbies are finding the game for the first time, but a quick scan of the player populations in PoK and the Bazaar tell me all I need to know. When is the next server merge?
Comment Posted by: Redhenna on May 26, 2007 04:37 PM
Since you are apparently ignorant of a few things that are pretty widely known these days, let me clue you in. Very few people hang out in PoK any more, guild hall is a much better place to stand around, as your buff timers don't count down. Guild lobby has also taken alot of the people who used to hang out in PoK. You just cannot use places like PoK as anything like an accurate metric for server population, especially when you don't have the first clue as to other changes that might have an effect on it.
The annerversary pack has appeared to be a real success so far. People are leaving WoW again and returning to EQ, as well as a number of new people, bored with WoW and trying EQ. People actually playing the game are commenting on the number of new players around.
Comment Posted by: grumps on May 26, 2007 07:06 PM
Actually, I have to agree with the previous poster - guild lobby population is down as well. Many guilds, including my own, are seeing a continual decline in membership since the last expansion release, despite all these "WoW refugees" we keep hearing about. I mean, it's good to maintain a positive attitude, but that doesn't mean we should ignore reality.
Comment Posted by: Klonn Darkbane on May 26, 2007 11:44 PM
EQ is still the best MMO out there.
WoW players are leaving in droves for EQ.
EQ has never had a server merger.
EQ players are deliberately hiding across all zones to avoid being counted.
EQ's best days are ahead.
SOE has never released a buggy expansion.
EQ requires incredible skill and talent to reach the end game, not just a whole bunch of time.
EQ's player population is growing and has probably exceeded 8 million.
Keep lying to yourselves, kids.
Comment Posted by: Teremar on May 27, 2007 02:22 AM
This is a Blizzard announcement, but since gold sellers are a headache for everyone:
"As many of you know, the latest content patch, along with many great new content additions, contains technical counter-measures designed to combat in-game gold spamming. Our efforts to reduce in-game abuse and create a fun, safe environment for everyone are never-ending.
With that said, we felt that it was important to share with the community just how serious we are in our efforts to combat this type of abuse. Blizzard has filed a federal lawsuit against the operators of Peons4hire, a popular gold-selling organization which many of you have no doubt seen advertised. As part of the lawsuit, the operators of Peons4hire have been asked to immediately cease all in-game spamming efforts by all entities and websites under their control.
If this organization refuses to act accordingly, further legal action will be taken. We'll be sure to keep you posted on the progress of this topic. "
I've been waiting for years for someone to sue these folks (gold sellers in general, not just Peons4hire). It's probably the size of WoW that makes it worthwhile for Blizzard to do it, but hopefully some legal precedents will be set that will make it easier/cheaper for SOE and other MMORPG companies to do the same.
(Personally I haven't gotten a single gold spam message since the patch, but I know others have. It's better but not perfect, so the lawsuit is a welcome development.)
Comment Posted by: Redhenna on May 27, 2007 02:34 AM
Nice one Klonn...no one is claiming things are perfect, nor that EQ's population is certainly well below peak. Truth is, neither you, I, nor anyone not at SoE knows for sure what EQ's subscription numbers are doing. I can say that, based on what I have seen, people are returning from WoW(again), there are brand new players(some coming over from WoW, some from other games), EQ has some great new content, and the new zones look better than anything in most games.
I can say, from my perspective, that EQ is vastly better than WoW, but that is an admittedly subjective view. I found it boring. I say this not to put WoW down, but as an example of how taste in games is entirely subjective.
EQ is very successfull for SoE, a low cost revenue generator. EQ offers alot to players, and for those who enjoy what EQ is, it is very fun. I think one of the marks of just how successfull EQ is can be seen in the way that, even after having quit and moved onto other games, so many ex-players are still very emotional(such as your obvious bitterness) about the game. It takes something exceptional to create that kind of emotional involvement for people.
Are EQ's numbers going up, down, holding steady? I dunno. I do know that the old metrics for trying to measure such things used by players(PoK populations, bazaar populations) are not really accurate any more, as with changes to the game, it has changed where people are. I suspect that EQ is on a slight uptick right now, with returning WoW/Vanguard players, and new players from the anniversary pack offsetting losses to LoTRO. Whether that is actually accurate, I dunno(unlike some, I am not going to insist my guesses are accurate). How long the uptick will last, again I dunno. I would guess that probably early next year, there will be more server mergers, as I think it is unlikely that there will be enough new players/returning players to offset general attrition of players and the further spreading out of the player population caused by another expansion...but again, that is just a guess. Don't try and put wild, innacurate words in my mouth, that is an old debate trick, used by those who can't effectively argue from their position.
Comment Posted by: Skuz Bukit on May 27, 2007 03:44 AM
Well, some server merges were due to trying to create healthy population servers from those with low populations purely to make the gamer more enjoyable for those players.
Some of it was hardware driven because the servers themselves were upgraded & the new kit can actually carry more active players at a time.
And yes some was a cost-cutting venture as numbers were in a slow decline after GoD, I think eq can retain its current players & appeal to new players, but in order to do that it would take some inventive marketing, if I was in soe right now i'd be pushing them to advertise the station pass selection of titles hard in various media, & then have more in-depth info & marketing connected in with it that focused on indivitual franchises.
Blizzard taking a currency seller to court, could be interesting to keep an eye on that.
Comment Posted by: Plymouth on May 27, 2007 03:53 AM
Um Red, reading through these last few posts I'd have to say you're the emotional one here. Klonn's post was obviously sarcastic in tone and you took it SOOOOO SERIOUSLY...but it did have the effect of having you contradict your previous post. By the way, "those who can't effectively argue from their position" usually end up name calling other people "ignorant" and "bitter"...oh wait, that would be you. WoW, EQ, Vanguard - they're all just games (and not great ones either), I'm just glad I don't let them cloud my vision or my emotions.
Comment Posted by: Aarkan on May 28, 2007 03:16 AM
I can honestly say that EQ2 is the game to be right now. If your PC can get the graphics up, it has very fun combat, cool classes, lots of races (huge plus in my book) lots of new content and new free content just added. Now has 2 cities for each side and you can pick it up with all expansions for $40. I have this sitting freshly reinstalled next to brand new install of Vanguard and I pick EQ2 every time. Playing an Arasai Assassin is a huge amount of fun and my old characters are better than ever after all the upgrades and the addition of Achievements. Since SoE is putting its might behind EQ2 and since there have been nothing but great changes made since launch I have no doubt that these so-called "WoW Refugees" are headed to Shattered Norrath.
-With Hate, Descent.
Comment Posted by: Pants on May 28, 2007 07:41 AM
Wow Teremar that is great news. All I can say is, it's about time someone take real action against these companies. Blizzard has the money to do so too, and it's smart of them to do it. Despite all the whining you will see on WoW's forums about "I'm quitting because class X is overpowered" or "fix my class or I'm gone" I believe people have and will really quit over the constant spam for ads they do not wish to see. It's much better to keep their entire player base happy than worry about the group of people who want to buy shortcuts to their epic flying mount training or whatever.
The new anti-spam features seem to be effective so far. I have notifications turned on with Spam Sentry and am seeing 1/10 the spam messages being blocked than I used to. Now it's mostly someone making a level 1 spammer, running to Stormwind and doing it in the trade channel just once an hour or so. I hope it stays that way.
Also I would like to comment on Loral's attitude lately towards EQ. In the past I have criticized Loral for not being objective at all about EQ. He would overlook shortcomings of the game, make excuses for bad decisions by Sony, and actually wrote an article on how EQ could reach 1 million subscribers when EQ had already reached it's peak at half that. I felt like he was acting like an unpaid spokesman for the game or something. Now though he's being more objective probably because he grew up, has a family and realizes some things are more important than some game. I think now he views online games from the perspective of how one can achieve goals in a game without it impacting one's life, not from the perspective of "I love this game and will defend it against any and all attacks, logic be damned." This means he will look at all games from a more even playing field as they impact him, not with some agenda to promote a particular one.
It has always been my view the fanboys are sometimes worse than whiners when it comes to many Internet forums. Many of them are so rabid in defense of the object of their fanboyism that they will attack anyone who even hints at anything negative. Many times they try to just shut up any people who do not tow the line, basically telling them to go away. They can be some of the worst forum trolls. I prefer to see a bit of both sides on forums I read. I don't want to see incessant whining but I don't want to see nothing but fluff either.
It may not be the best comparison to rate WoW versus EQ because of the age difference of the 2 games, but it is also not an unfair comparison to make. Both games are currently running. They both exist right now and people can choose to play one or the other (or something else completely). In order for people to decide which to play (assuming they haven't decided a 3rd choice) they have to compare the two. When this is done as it stands today WoW will just look better to most people. WoW has better graphics and sound. It has a point to doing quests even from level 1. It has a more realistic time commitment, as in you can accomplish more in shorter chunks of time. The lore is really a matter of tastes because it's not like either is very original. The player base I can only speak to WoW because I haven't played EQ in awhile but I can't see how anything can be worse than WoW's. Overall though because it's newer, better technology, more refined (because they had years of other MMOs to learn from), and has more people playing (which many people will consider a plus when playing an online game) most people will choose WoW over EQ. The funny thing with me though is years from now I will probably pretty much forget WoW but will always remember 1999-2001 in EQ. The wonder of running through the Karanas, the great feel of Kunark with remnants of the old Iksar empire everywhere and the awesome story of Velious. After that I feel the game was all downhill but still for a few years there it was a great ride. I can't say that so much for WoW despite it being a very well polished game. I would never go back to EQ though because you can't recapture the magic that's long gone. It's best not to try to live in the past.
Comment Posted by: wormy on May 28, 2007 08:51 AM
@Redhenna
"The annerversary pack has appeared to be a real success so far."
What pack are you talking about? There's nothing in the Sony store...
--
There maybe one often ignored fact about EQ: it's no longer available outside the USA (and maybe Canada).
And to add to the topic of the "returning players" - my last top raid guild I was in, just dissolved. The remaining 4 players joined to last remaining top raid guild on the server, which is going down too, slowly.
The final blow to the guild was, after "WoW Burning Crusade", the release of "Lord of the Rings Online". "Vanguard" was nothing but a short episode to the leaving players.
Comment Posted by: Wibble on May 30, 2007 03:05 AM
Here's a link to the Anniversary pack in the Station Store (although it's currently showing as out of stock):
https://store.station.sony.com/hardgood.jsp?SKU=EQ1RE-HG-SW0407-EQANNV
You can also get it as a digital download from these two places, so people outside the US and Canada can still get hold of it:
http://www.digitalriver.com/promo=182947
http://www.digitalriver.com/promo=182948
Comment Posted by: Wibble on May 30, 2007 03:08 AM
Here's a link to the Anniversary pack in the Station Store (although it's currently showing as out of stock):
https://store.station.sony.com/hardgood.jsp?SKU=EQ1RE-HG-SW0407-EQANNV
You can also get it as a digital download from these two places, so people outside the US and Canada can still get hold of it:
http://www.digitalriver.com/promo=182947
http://www.digitalriver.com/promo=182948
Comment Posted by: wirmy on May 30, 2007 03:05 PM
@Wibble
Thanks!
The pricing is strange: TBS alone 29 - full pack 19 ...
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Email Mike at mike@mikeshea.net for more questions or comments.